Proxy: clayop - Voting power for reasonable fee system and healthy network

[abit]

@clayop Please vote for the refund or burn workers.

IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.

By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.

[Frodo]

Do you plan to vote for the proposed BSIP worker (1.14.29) ?
I'd appreciate your support for it.

[xeroc]

maqifrnswa doesn't upgrade his node still. He never get my votes in the future.

And I am asking other proxies to vote down him. @bytemaster @bitcrab @xeroc @jakub @Xeldal

He may just be on vacations with poor internet connectivity.
Voted him down Removed my votes for now an awaiting clarification

[clayop]

maqifrnswa doesn't upgrade his node still. He never get my votes in the future.

And I am asking other proxies to vote down him. @bytemaster @bitcrab @xeroc @jakub @Xeldal

[clayop]

Update:

I voted down maqifrnswa because this witness is not reactive to yesterday's urgent patch.

And I voted for cass's proposal (1.14.28) and all eight burn/refund workers created by the committee.

[abit]

I was wondering why shareholders have to pay $300 instead of $3 when the fund comes from external source (in this case onceuponatime)

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

My previous thought is this proposal should be near zero cost. But I figured out that $300 for stealth is going to go xeroc to maintain the BSIP. That makes sense.

I think 1.14.17 (Documentation/Technical Support/Python+UI Development) would be voted in for the BSIPs instead of this special one.

[clayop]

I was wondering why shareholders have to pay $300 instead of $3 when the fund comes from external source (in this case onceuponatime)

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

My previous thought is this proposal should be near zero cost. But I figured out that $300 for stealth is going to go xeroc to maintain the BSIP. That makes sense.

[sittingduck]

To take it seriously and hopefully increase vote.

[jakub]

I was wondering why shareholders have to pay $300 instead of $3 when the fund comes from external source (in this case onceuponatime)

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

[abit]

@clayop How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.

I was wondering why shareholders have to pay $300 instead of $3 when the fund comes from external source (in this case onceuponatime)
In addition of that, I'm very busy these days to visit my family, so the vote already passed.

Anyway you can still vote now..

[clayop]

@clayop How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.

I was wondering why shareholders have to pay $300 instead of $3 when the fund comes from external source (in this case onceuponatime)
In addition of that, I'm very busy these days to visit my family, so the vote already passed.

[abit]

@clayop How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.

[clayop]

I fully support svk's worker proposal.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20655.0.html

[clayop]

I reject the below worker proposal because (1) it is too expensive (about $35,000) and (2) it is not a core feature of Bitshares.
IMHO, we now need to use a worker proposal to expand our core functions. But I'm still open to any of your opinion. Please let me know.

[clayop]

I support the worker proposal 1.14.8 created by @wmbutler
He is very enthusiastic, organized, and good at communication. I think the worker proposal will empower the GUI development.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20144.0.html
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14d9bBAyUoB9wcBpFnYoGpE1MF0RnOwMKpF2Z8eh0QkI/edit